The Supreme Court spent Wednesday morning thinking very seriously Cases that no one should take seriously.
FCC vs. Consumer Research The Justice was asked to restore a long-death legal doctrine known as “non-conquest” that strictly restricted Congress’ power to delegate power to federal agencies and essentially handed over power to the judiciary. The problem of this legal doctrine, besides the difficulties it will cause for the institutions that attempt to perform its tasks, There is no place in the Constitutiontherefore, when a judge should violate the law of authorizing agency, it is impossible to propose principled rules to guide.
this Consumer research Cases are also strange tools to restore non-noble doctrines, because in this case, under the current non-conquering precedent of the court, specific regulations should be disputed in this case. In fact, even if the courts want to abandon those precedents, it favors an alternative, more stringent non-noble framework Proposed by Justice Neil Gorsuch in 2019 Dissentcontroversial in the federal plan Consumer research Should still be maintained.
While all six of all Republicans in the court have sympathized with the broader plan to expand the court’s power to overturn federal agencies, only three of them seem likely to hit the law that is actually controversial Consumer research. In this case, the Court’s opinion may still have considerable long-term implications if it contains Gorsuch’s proposed framework or otherwise expands the authority of the judiciary. However, the current statutory plan of the Justice before seems to survive.
So what’s the problem in this case?
Consumer research Involves a General Service Fundprovide telephone and Internet services to rural areas and other difficult-to-reach areas. Without this plan, these services are expensive in many poor or sparse areas of the country.
The General Services Fund effectively taxes telephone and Internet service providers and uses the money to pay for services in these expensive areas. In fact, this means that service providers transfer the cost of this tax to their urban and suburban customers – so people in cities end up providing subsidized communications to people in rural communities.
One challenge Congress faced when creating the program is that the amount the fund had to raise to achieve universal services varies every year. So instead of setting precise annual tax rates for service providers, Congress appointed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to determine how much money the fund should be charged.
this Federal Regulations Controversial Consumer research Provides very detailed instructions on how to make a decision. It only allows the FCC to subsidize services used by “most residential customers”, it instructs the FCC to raise enough funds to allow rural customers to pay “reasonably comparable” rates to other customers, and lists many other principles that the FCC must follow.
Therefore, the FCC should look at what communication services the vast majority of Americans already have, and it should raise enough funds to ensure rural customers pay similar prices to urban customers without raising so much that rural rates are much cheaper.
According to the current precedent of the court, Congress can only provide institutions with “Understandable principles” It must be followed when it exercises its authority, and there is no serious argument that the regulation fails to pass this test.
Gorsuch’s objection Gundy v. United States (2019) also involves non-conquest, proposing a new and vague rule – Congress must present the “proposed standard “clear and precise enough” to enable Congress, courts and the public to determine “whether Congress has followed Congress’ guidance”, but even under Gorsack’s standards, it is difficult to make the argument of the Universal Service Fund.
Only three judges seem to think that Universal Service Fund is illegal
Perhaps for this reason, Judge Clarence Thomas proposed a completely novel way to invalidate the fund. Thomas suggested that non-noble doctrines should apply for more force in taxation cases, limiting Congress’s power to determine how much tax the federal agencies could raise.
However, one problem with Thomas’s approach is that the court holds Skinner v Mid-America Pipeline Co. (1989), the Constitution does not require a different, stricter non-private doctrine of delegating discretion to executive powers under its tax authority. “So, achieving Thomas’ preferred result would require the court to overturn it Skinner.
Meanwhile, Justice Samuel Alito followed his typical practice, struggling to oppose a series of irrelevant questions about Republican orthodoxy, hoping they could stumble upon one of them – and Justice Gorsuch joined the strategy.
During the debate, Alito and Gorsuch complained that the FCC created a company to set interest rates, which could use tax capabilities to destroy companies, while the FCC sought input from the companies they were taxing. Once, Gorsuch Decompose the “ma clock” In 1982, other telephone monopoly was created.
None of these arguments are relevant At least under existing laws, whether the Universal Service Fund is constitutional.
Meanwhile, other Republicans in the court raised some skeptical questions to the two lawyers defending the fund, but ultimately they seemed to conclude that this particular non-conqueror challenge was not feasible.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh did ask attorney Sarah Harris how to distinguish between taxes and “fees”, suggesting that Kavanaugh had some sympathy for Thomas’s position, but ultimately seemed satisfied with Harris’ answer, but the distinction was incredibly stupid in practice. ”
Similarly, although Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Harret to distinguish this law from other hypothetical laws that would raise more serious non-obligation issues, such as a law that only directs the IRS to raise enough funds to provide “food” for those in need, she also seems skeptical that this particular law is unconstitutional.
It is worth noting that Barrett threw cold water at Thomas’ suggestion that there should be special tax rules. She noted that Congress could solve this problem by raising funds with the ability to raise funds up to $3 trillion, but it was an empty requirement, just to throw away numbers in order to throw them away.
In other words, the general desire of Republican judges to expand non-noble doctrines seems to be a wish Five of them are publicly expressed at one or the other – Probably in Consumer research The case is because this situation is a bad tool to expand non-conquest. Unless the Supreme Court wants to strip Congress of its capabilities, Congress’ instructions to the FCC are as detailed as possible.
Courts can still use the case to seize power
It is worth noting that Even the Trump administration agrees The Universal Service Fund is legal and the federal government changed its position in this situation after Trump took office. this The initial introduction to the governmentThis was filed in the last two weeks of the Biden administration, who believes the court should apply for existing laws and maintain the fund. By comparison, its Reply summary (Shortly respond to the other party’s argument) Gundy Objection seems to be the law. The summary of the reply was submitted after Trump took office.
Even if the court insists on the universal service fund that seems possible, Republican justices can still use the case to abandon the long-term “understandable principle” framework that gives Congress a lot of power to delegate power to institutions and replace it with Gorsuch’s “sufficiently determined and precise” framework. Because the framework for the future is so vague, the decision to adopt the Gorasitch approach will make the judge more discretionary decisions about federal plans that they do not like.
Therefore, even if the court rejects extremely weak attacks against the law in this case, it can still use the case to gain a lot of power. Gorsuch’s framework will transfer a lot of power from federal agencies that are controlled by the president-elect and towards the judiciary ruled by Republicans. This means that the American people have much less control over the way they are managed.
